HOWARD, FEBRUARY 15, 1900. AT 
Summarizing this paper by Howard the following points might be 
mentioned: 
1. Howard received during the year 1899 a few samples of a 
brood disease, principally through Mr. West, of New York State. 
2. He reported that the disease was a new one and gave to it the 
name ‘“‘New York bee disease” or ‘“‘black brood.” 
3. From the samples of the disorder he claims to have isolated 
an organism to which he gave the name Bacillus mili. 
4, He made no description of ‘Bacillus milw”’ by which it is 
possible to identify the organism positively. 
5.. He claims that ‘Bacillus miliz” is the cause of the disorder 
which he studied, and in support of it he relates some experimental 
work. 
6. He says that ‘‘ Bacillus militz” may be accompanied by another 
species, ‘‘ Bacillus thoracis,”’ which may assist in the destruction of 
the brood. 
This concludes our consideration of three papers written by 
William R. Howard. 
Reviewing the writings of William R. Howard, one learns that 
they have caused no small amount of confusion in the minds of bee- 
keepers respecting the brood diseases of bees. Howard claimed to 
have found Bacillus alver in that form of foul brood characterized by 
a ropiness, and asserted that that organism is the cause of the disease. 
He gave the name ‘‘pickied brood” to an apparent disorder of bees 
which, he says, had often been mentioned in the writings of bee- 
keepers. He asserts that this ‘‘pickled brood” is due to a fungus 
to which he gave the name Aspergillus pollint. He called the disease 
about which Cheshire and Cheyne had already written (p. 25), 
“black brood.” He declared the disorder to be due to a micro- 
organism to which he gave the name Bacillus mln. The incomplete 
description which Howard made of the species, however, does not 
make it possible to identify such an organism. 
The authors of this paper have received some evidence, however, 
as to the identity of Howard’s Bacillus milu. Howard sent bouillon 
and agar cultures of what he claimed was Bacillus milii to one of his 
correspondents stating that it was possible that the culture was not 
pure. Accompanying the cultures was a stained cover-glass prepara- 
tion which he said was prepared from the vegetative form of the 
bacillus. The cultures, together with the stained preparation, 
were forwarded to us. In the cultures was found only Bacillus alvei. 
The stained preparation contained apparently only spores (not 
vegetative forms), and as far as it is possible to know from a micro- 
scopical examination these spores were the spores of Bacillus alvet. 
Such facts should dispel any particular anxiety one might possess 
concerning the existence of such an organism as Bacillus mili. 
